Quote from: Cluster2k on September 09, 2014, 02:13:10 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on September 09, 2014, 01:24:25 PM

Under the broken logic and dubious math you're all using, you know what else is suspicious? Everyone who's ever won the Powerball. It's SO suspicious that anyone would play or win a game with a 0% chance of winning!

Incorrect, although I take the point you're making. The chances of winning my local version of Powerball is about 1 in 43 million. It's never zero and chances are someone is going to win every week or two, given enough entries. What mateo did is quite different. It wasn't one jackpot win of 500+ btc. It was consistent betting over thousands of 'rolls'. Looking at the results I would say mateo had the 1% edge against the house, not the other way around.

The above posters who stated the chances of mateo doing what he did as zero chance are clearly incorrect. There's always a chance mateo could get very lucky. But given the certain facts surrounding DB it's natural even a casual observer would have questions to ask.

I'm asking those questions too. The difference is I'm asking the questions and not drawing foregone conclusions from those questions. I used "0%" sarcastically as a barb at the guy who posted a very convoluted bunch of math garbage to reach the conclusion that Matteo's odds of winning was 0%. It's not 0%, just like the odds of winning Powerball (1:175 million) is not 0%. I was not comparing the odds of Powerball to the likeliness of Matteo's win streak however. My overall point was that people use broken logic and bad math to reach a conclusion, which for the way it was reached is necessarily flawed. In this thread, the fact that something is extremely unlikely is proof that it is impossible. That's not how math works. If the odds are not literally 0, then it is possible, and if it is possible, without evidence of wrongdoing all you have is speculation. As I've already said, I find it compelling speculation and I myself believe Matteo is an inside job weighing all the information available, but I'm answering all the people who question why it's not universally accepted to be fact.

I'm operating under the assumption Matteo somehow stole the coins. I'm just not spreading that as gospel and belittling people who won't. Those are the people I'm taking issue with.

Quote from: Cluster2k on September 09, 2014, 02:13:10 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on September 09, 2014, 01:24:25 PM

Don't confuse someone who knows the difference between suspicious circumstances and evidence as someone who believes Matteo and manl are two different people. Just because you've convicted manl with missing pieces of information and while high on emotion and based on speculation doesn't mean everyone has such a low threshold for judgment.

We do know the site was rigged for around two weeks and did not work as advertised. One could reasonably argue that given the other suspicious events at the site the threshold for judgment has been markedly lowered to the reasonable observer.

I agree! The fact that the code was originally rigged is perhaps the most important piece in this whole thing. This whole scenario is suspicious and people should NOT be gambling on the site anymore (which is still running). But it doesn't change anything I posted above about perpetuating suspicions as established facts.